Re: NT server, pro/con

In article <3ihe93$h2u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, cphoa@ix.netcom.com (Chris Phoa) writes: |> |> NT Strong points: |> - Ease of use. Network services, user-id maintenace, hard disk |> config (i.e. shadowing/mirroring, striping, etc.) has never been so |> damn simple! You can probably get it up and going just from reading |> the manuals! Try doing that with UNIX or VMS! |> |> |> - Very low overhead. You don't need an entire football team to |> maintain this sucker. I came from a VMS/Unix shop....I know. We're in the same position, heavily into SCO running on machines that could in theory run NT - but the thing which all NT devotees seem to avoid in one of *performance*. Sure setting the thing up is important, especially from the point of view of wasting time (& money), but in the long run this is surely worth nothing if the thing runs like a pig (no experience of NT yet so don't take this as a slander ;) ). I *am* currently installing NT/W 3.5 on my own machine to play about with it, but my main interest is in using it (NTAS3.5) as a combined file/print/mail server with DBMS taking most of the cycles. How does it compare to the following : o Altos 7000 (Dual Pentium) o 16/32 meg RAM o Usual SCSI-2 kit, probably around 1-2gig o SCO Unix 3.2v4.2 o Informix SE "Why not use OnLine" I hear you all shout (!) - because we sell to small government departments (circa 20 people) who usually have no IT dept let alone a DB man. SE is v.easy to setup/keep running... How would NT compare on the same setup running SQL Server - we are moving down the "client/server" route as I speak... Can someone comment on the *performance* of NT in this sort of situation. All the best, // tbone@Home in Wet'n'Windy Ireland (freezing his 'nads off :| )